Brent_Allsop replied 12 years ago (May 23rd 2011, 8:23:58 am)
Thanks Steve, this is a great way to put it.
But the point here, isn't just repetitive arguing, as it seems to be in the peer reviewed literature, on Philsophy TV, and everywhere else, which I agree is a complete waste. The point here is to collaboratively developed concise descriptions of all these diverse ways of thinking about things, get a quantitative measure of which ones are waning, which ones are waxing, and why, so the true experts can find out, quantitatively, what works and what doesn't.
Representational Qualia Theory makes real predictions about what the nuts and bolts researchers need to do, to start effing the ineffable, and discover the neural correlates that have them. Of course it is our prediction, that this is precisely what the researchers will find, and that doing so, will falsify competing theories, which we'll know definitively has been falsified, when all the most respected experts in those camps all do, finally start abandoning them, and join what science demonstrates to us all as true. Hopefully, Keith can describe, concisely, just what it is he believes, and why, and what he expects the scientists to demonstrate, that will prove him right, and make us convert to his camp, if such is really possible, or if there is something in what he is saying that we are still failing to fully grasp?